3 ms·

I don't think there is no risk--would anyone think there is no risk in starting a car company!??!!? Hello!??! The issue here is if we are going to give 25b in

I don't think there is no risk--would anyone think there is no risk in starting a car company!??!!? Hello!??! The issue here is if we are going to give 25b in funding to companies to advance new car technology we should probably start with the company that has been most successful in actually delivering a product (i.e. Tesla and not GM).

aston 18y ago
Didn't expect you to show up here, but since you are, here's my major disagreement: What makes you so certain that Tesla has so much more ability to execute than the big three auto companies? They're years and years behind in the "deliver a few people electric cars" race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car). And based on the executive turnover at Tesla, how could anyone really be sure that the leadership there is stable enough to be trusted to actually make good on a government loan? I know the Roadster is awesome, and I agree with most of your points about it being at least a legit, innovative, and potentially affordable venture. But you kind of omit the part of the argument about why Tesla deserves it and the other companies don't...
petercooper 18y ago
I've voted you up just because it's awesome that you're here ;-) I do agree that if we're going to give money to anyone, it should be someone who can deliver new, game-changing products. I still feel, though, that your piece has great intentions but isn't a good rebuttal to the NYT piece. Non-technological America - when presented with a loan to Tesla or GM - will be thinking of all the people already employed who could lose their jobs at GM rather than the new possibilities offered by companies like Tesla. I just didn't think your post really catered to those people, and they're the ones who make the most noise in this country.

aston 18y ago

Didn't expect you to show up here, but since you are, here's my major disagreement: What makes you so certain that Tesla has so much more ability to execute than the big three auto companies? They're years and years behind in the "deliver a few people electric cars" race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car). And based on the executive turnover at Tesla, how could anyone really be sure that the leadership there is stable enough to be trusted to actually make good on a government loan? I know the Roadster is awesome, and I agree with most of your points about it being at least a legit, innovative, and potentially affordable venture. But you kind of omit the part of the argument about why Tesla deserves it and the other companies don't...

petercooper 18y ago

I've voted you up just because it's awesome that you're here ;-) I do agree that if we're going to give money to anyone, it should be someone who can deliver new, game-changing products. I still feel, though, that your piece has great intentions but isn't a good rebuttal to the NYT piece. Non-technological America - when presented with a loan to Tesla or GM - will be thinking of all the people already employed who could lose their jobs at GM rather than the new possibilities offered by companies like Tesla. I just didn't think your post really catered to those people, and they're the ones who make the most noise in this country.